I bought that new firewire card reader that handles both CF and SD that Mark suggested. (Hey, I'm not at my work computer, so I can't remember what it's called. But I know it starts with an A :-). I downloaded the same 1 gig card to my laptop G4 1.67 and my desktop G4, dual 1.25. I didn't stopwatch it, but the difference was minor. About a minute and a half on each. I can live with that. Paul On Jul 14, 2006, at 8:49 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> I look forward to seeing the timing data. That is, in my opinion, > always the bottom line vs software tools feedback given the very > different hardware and software environments. I also ordered one of > those FireWire readers that Paul mentioned so I'll be doing some more > timings with that when it gets here. > > BTW: the G5 Tower timings are different from the PowerBook G4 timings > too. > Sometimes, I just cannot forego the geekyness of measuring things > like this ... it's the scientist/researcher/mathematician part of > me. :-) > > G > > > On Jul 14, 2006, at 5:08 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > >> From memory, I can tell you that the download speed from the 80X card >> varied with which USB port I used on the computer, and whether or >> not I >> used a card reader. The slowest speed, which was pretty close to >> your 60X >> Sandisk, came from using the built-in multi card reader, and the >> faster >> speed came from using a Lexar multi card reader attached to a >> different USB >> port (the built-in reader not only has card slots but a USB and a >> Firewire >> port). Xfer time was measured using HD Tune and HD Tach. >> >> I recently found a clock with a sweep second hand in my darkroom. >> Maybe >> I'll measure download speed using that at some point. >> >> Shel >> >> >> >>> [Original Message] >>> From: Godfrey DiGiorgi >> >>> LOL ... Performance the same as and half the price as the Sandisk >>> Ultra II is really enough advantage for me. ;-) >>> >>> Just to be sure, I tested download speed again. Sandisk ImageMate >>> 12- >>> in-1 reader, Power Mac G5 tower USB 2, checking 'disk activity' with >>> the Activity Monitor application.... >>> >>> On a full card with varied mix of JPEG and RAW files, >>> - Transcend 150x - Read speed varies from 7.9 to 8.9 >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> - Sandisk Ultra II (60x) - Read speed varies from 7.2 to 7.6 >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >>> Average 8.4 vs 7.4 [EMAIL PROTECTED] means average performance gain of >>> 13.5%. >>> >>> In real world terms, this means 3 min, 50 seconds to transfer a full >>> 2G 150x card vs 4 min, 30 seconds to transfer a full 2G Ultra II >>> card, in round numbers. Timed out with a sweep second hand >>> wristwatch, the reality is pretty close to the calculation. That's a >>> useful if not earth shattering improvement. >>> >>> From an academic point of view, I'd be interested to know how fast >>> your system can download from these cards and how you are getting >>> that measurement. :-) >>> >>> Godfrey >>> >>> On Jul 14, 2006, at 1:47 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks for doing all this. Even though there seems not to be much >>>> of an in >>>> camera advantage to using a card faster than about 80X. I think I'm >>>> going >>>> to get the 150X Transcend card anyway. The price/capacity ratio is >>>> too >>>> good to pass up, the faster downloading may be helpful (I ~think~ >>>> my system >>>> was a little faster than yours even with the slower card 9mbs, >>>> iirc), so >>>> it'll be interesting to see what it'll do with a card that's rated >>>> almost >>>> twice as fast, plus the newer cameras (Pentax or other brands) may >>>> be able >>>> to take better advantage of the faster cards, as might subsequent >>>> card >>>> readers. >> >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
